It seems that revalidation is an inevitable process, since we (osteopathy) are being dragged along in the wake of the medical and associated professions, who are heading down this route.
If something is inevitable – like it or not – then we need to attempt to mould the process as much as is feasible – or opt out. The question is – is the label ‘osteopath’ important to you? If so accommodation to this process is required and that should be made (by our representatives) as painless as possible. A key question is how we can best achieve that end?
The process of revalidation seems to me to have a great deal to do with organisation of information for others – how we reflect on what we do, how we keep up to date, how we do what we do, how we record what we do etc. So, as one does, I went searching in Amazon, and identified a recent book: Revalidation: Prepare Now and Get It Right by Ruth Chambers, Gill Wakeley, and Phil Bright (Radcliffe Publishing 2008) – that offers a detailed look at this process,
It contains chapter titles such as:
Collecting your evidence – including: preparing for appraisal and revalidation; identifying your professional development; what to learn etc
Demonstrating the standards of your practice – including: evidence of competence and performance; demonstrating you can provide good clinical care; good medical [osteopathic] practice; good relationships with patients; how well you work with colleagues; high standards of teaching and training; probity; high standards in research; affirming your health status; and the quality of your work in various settings (clinical, management, employer, team leader, academic post etc)_
My initial response to the prospect of having to demonstrate all this, was an ego driven sense of frustration and irritation. But are those feelings justifiable? Is it not possible, indeed likely, that I really should be able to demonstrate all (most?) of these qualities, capabilities, skills – and pretty well at that, after nearly 50 years in practice?
The time, effort, bureaucratic-irritation, are the hurdles. But the truth is that this is inevitable, so what we need to do as a profession is inform the GOC via consultation in the hope that they will pay some attention to our concerns, as to what’s important and what’s less so. And/or we should lobby our paid representatives (e.g. BOA) to do the same.
I rationalise that as I approach retirement (again), when the time comes to finally give up seeing patients (this time for good), the prospect of revalidation is less of an issue, for me personally.
In my mind osteopathy, as a philosophical model of health care, that dovetails neatly with naturopathic thinking, has little to do with what techniques are chosen to achieve therapeutic change, but has everything to do with recognition of the primary potency of self-regulation which we aim to encourage by means of our therapeutic methodology.
Observing and recording our patient management skills, technical skills and all the other revalidation requirements, including CPD requirements, may have very little to do with how well we deliver this model of healthcare – but demonstrating that we can handle all the revalidation demands may be the price we have to pay in order to continue practising.
Leon Chaitow
Corfu April 2009
Revalidation is one of the areas that we have to address from a regulatory point of view. The basic reason is that it is part of the “baggage” that comes with regulation.
You cannot expect to be exempt from this and other matters. I agree with Leon’s points and think that this and the practice framework consultation are very good examples of how we can be reflective personally as well as a profession [especially with regard to the revalidation document] and even more importantly show how we are different from physios etc.
Leon’s last paragraph alludes to the”price we have to pay”. I think that if we do all these things he lists then we are not only fulfilling a paper exercise but probably demonstrating good practice in our daily work perhaps without necessarily fully realising it. Reflective practice is not new and there are many practitioners of all disciplines who need “wake up calls”; better a “nudge” now compared to a “big shake up” later.
BE PREPARED because I think that before long we will be required to complete practice audits. I can remember the days when osteopaths were liable to VAT and there was all that extra record keeping and form filling demanded every quarter. A practice audit and self reflection will at least be more beneficial to the individual practitioner than this sort of bureaucracy.
It is important for all Osteopaths to take part in these consultation processes, because if only a handful do, then it could be assumed that the rest are in agreement with proposals or more importantly is there an apathy to these inevitable changes which might eventually turn into antagonism because they could not be bothered at the time.
Bob Burge
27th April 2009